This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Remind me again why wikipedia is not doing this. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has recently concluded Aspergers Syndrome is- for all intents-and-purposes- the same condition as autism.Ordessa (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
It's complicated. Semantics mostly.--Aurictalk 17:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Because Asperger syndrome still exists in the WHO ICD scheme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The Autism article is already far too long - the spectrum of autism is conveniently (if arbitrarily) divided into several different segments (of which Asperger Syndrome is one) - and currently each has it's own article. If we merged them all back together then the very next thing we'd have to do would be to figure out how to split the resulting gigantic article up again - and the present division is as good as any.
The changes in DSM V don't alter the fact that we have special names for various sections of the Autism spectrum - all it does it to make clear that from a diagnostic perspective, these are all shades of symptoms from what is presumed to be a common cause or set of causes.
As an adult person who appears to have Asperger's and has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression, it is vital for me to have been able to begin my search for answers here in this wonderfully real Wikipedia universe; merging these articles would do a disservice to those who need this information for the information that it is. That's the point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a diagnostic tool. Whether the American Psychological Association classifies Asperger's as a separate diagnosis or not has no bearing here, other than as a noted piece of information in the article(s). I agree that the Autism, and even the High-Functioning Autism articles are already so heavily informative that it/they cannot absorb the additional information in the Asperger's article and be functionally serviceable for a reader; it would amount to one of Wikipedia's books, which is what I did with these and related pages - put them into my own "book". It is wise to keep Wikipedia the information resource it is by not politicizing or medicalizing information. Anniecan (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)anniecan
Asperger's and high level autism are two different subjects. The fact that DSM cannot figure out how to deal with them does not mean that Wikipedia should necessarily add to the confusion. As someone who has been diagnosed with Asperger's, the ability to look specifically for Asperger's rather than a generic "autism" article provides the reader with a lot more direction. Where is the benefit from merging? Does it disenfranchise a group of people who identify with Asperger('s) Syndrome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Would someone please explain the difference between "Asperger's" and "high functioning autism"? As a practicing psychiatric social worker, I do not know the difference. Granted ASDs are not an area of my expertise. But going by current definitions in professional literature, there is no difference.Dstern1 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The article High-functioning autism explains the differences, though not everyone agrees on them or their clinical significance. I think this talk page needs a big banner stating that just because DSM-V has merged their diagnostic categories doesn't mean that a syndrome thousands of people are diagnosed with and is part of common culture will suddenly disappear. These requests are like saying that just because The Beatles split up, we should no longer have that article. -- Colin°Talk 09:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Great analogy. Maybe we should put it on all psyc related article talk pages. The world does not revolve around the DSM even though some seem to think so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
By no means would I ever suggest that all reference to the term "Asperger's" be excised. I also see merit in the argument that it would be inadequately concise if the 2 articles were merged. None-the-less, I question the existence of differences. Yes, this is a complicated and controversal issue.Dstern1 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The diagnosis of Asperger syndrome is scientifically and culturally significant despite being deprecated, since notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but the article will need to be rewritten from a historical perspective. Muffinator (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Asperger syndrome is currently only deprecated in the DSM. Asperger diagnosis is not historical if many countries which rely more on the ICD (including here in the UK) are still diagnosing it. Wikipedia is about more than just the US... ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As I noted on the HFA talk page, there is a huge problem with the other article. The problem is with terms and definitions. It defines HFA as "autism without mental retardation" and references a journal article in Portuguese as the source. I had expressed frustration as I do not read Portuguese; however, I have been fortunate to obtain an English translation. The article as translated never uses the term "High Functioning Autism." It differentiates between people with autism and mental retardation and without MR. Unquestionably, people without MR are functioning on a higher level than those with MR. But the cited article does not report upon less impaired people with autism per se. Hence, I propose that the HFA article be deleted and a redirect here for those searching for "High Functioning Autism." Dstern1 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Since Asperger is no longer considered a valid diagnosis, souldn't the article's headline reflect this (such as "Asperger.... was considered an autistism spectrum disorder...." Dan Gluck (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The DSM-5 isn't the end all and be all of mental health diagnostic guidelines. DonIago (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Asperger syndrome is still considered to be a part of the autism spectrum. DSM V merely formalizes that. With your phrasing readers would assume that people who are labelled "Asperger" are no longer considered to be on the autism spectrum - which is quite the opposite of what DSM V did. SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Searching Wikipedia for assburgers redirects to this page, even though assburgers is not mentioned on the page. Perhaps someone should add a note that this is a common derogatory term for Asperger's used on the trashier Internet forums and IRC; otherwise, the redirect would make no sense to the uninitiated. ThVa (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
DUDE, that is very rude and inappropriate, as it is degrading to anyone who may have the disability (myself included). May you please remove that feature? GUEST— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Many people do not know how to spell Asperger. That is why the redirect exists. Redirects aren't comments endorsing derogatory terms; they're just a way to help people find what they're actually looking for. Muffinator (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd still like to see a source. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I just realised it's an American thing that doesn't work in Australian English, which is my version. I think we pronounce "Aspergers" pretty much the same, but in Australia, the part of me that I sit on is pronounced differently. So the insult wouldn't work here. So it isn't used. So I've never heard of it. Now I have! Thanks again. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I had never heard of it either before seeing this thread but than am to old I think. Google books is amazing though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we have a dual-standard here.
The question is, do we (as an encyclopedia) endorse putting in redirects from derogatory terms to the corresponding politically correctly titled article?
I don't think we do that.
For example, would you advocate a redirect from "Nigger music" to "African American Music" or from "Redskin languages" to Indigenous languages of the Americas? That's analogous to what's being proposed here I think. I'm pretty sure you could find a handful of decent sources where those terms are used - which is more than you have for "Assburgers"...so the absence of those redirects isn't a matter of notability or reliable sources because I'm quite certain that "Nigger" is both more notable and more reliably sourced than "Assburgers". The only times I could find when the word "Nigger" or other derogatory terms were used in an article title was as the title of an actual article about the origins and history of the word itself or where it's the literal, verbatim title of a book or music album or the name of a person or something. "Nigger" doesn't redirect to African American or Black people. You could (I suppose) argue for writing an article about the word "Assburgers", just as there is one for "Nigger" - but I doubt that would survive a notability test.
"Assburgers" is also a neologism...and we have rules about those too.
I conclude that this redirect is inappropriate and should be deleted. SteveBaker (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. A derogatory pun that doesn't even work in all versions of the English language doesn't belong in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah...so the previous discussion was for a group of redirects - some were kept and some deleted. "Assburger" was a keep by the closing admin on the grounds that it's a common misspelling. I kinda doubt that's why the redirect was created. SteveBaker (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As someone who argued above for keeping the redirect, I find this argument compelling. Although it's not a perfect comparison since "nigger" is not a homophone of "African" or "black", I think this discussion warrants some formal attention such as a listing on redirects for discussion or a request for comment on this page. Muffinator (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Under the Management section, I wonder if we could list both common interventions used in educational and home settings, and also list schools and programs that are specifically set up to help students with Asperger's. This seems to be a resource that families are often looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troolium (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Suggested merger with "high-functioning autism"